Ayrton Senna gives Schumi ****

What amazes me is how many people there are out there who can't read. Where did I say "I" or another lawyer laughed? To the best of my knowledge MS is not a lawyer...

 

A few facts, Senna got his start in a Candy Toleman where he made a POS shine and was then grabed by Lotus renault. The lotus was not the top tier either yet Senna's talent made it a competitor. Check 85 & 86, thats when he was grabbing all the poles and he either retired from the race or finished on podim even though Mclaren, Williams, Ferrari, and Brabham even renault were better teams.

Bennetton had shown a little promise for years when MS got there, and when he did get there F1 was in a downhill slide having just gotten rid of all the power of the turbo's. MS was good, and close in talent but not as good as AS. He and/or his management have unrivaled skill for assembling and keeping a top knotch team.

 

Braking has improved, BUT what about 1100 hp, huge sticky slicks, ground effects, larger wings, and NO WIMPY CHICANES don't you understand. Not to mention the all out unlimited qualifying rules with best lap. Driving back in the 80's was a whole other league. Qualifying was amazing. Speeds were much higher on turns and straights. Simply much more demanding back then, more sliding, more excitement.

The GOLDEN Year;

http://www.formula1.com/archive/season/1985.html

No domination, 5 top teams, high speeds and power, real tracks. If they were to incorporate those rules to todays tech with safer runoff areas and NO chicanes, F1 would be incredibly exciting, not the parade it usually is.

 

As we get older we all think the past was somehow better, worse, easier, harder, ect...The fact is there is no way to tell as Senna is dead and never drove a "modern" F1 car. That being said, from what I've read and seen F1 is MUCH more an athletic endeaver today than ever. While Senna appeared have to be in good shape, if you look at some older F1 video you will send some F1 drivers that were a little chubby and clearly not in the best of shape...they would likely pass out from the G-forces of a modern F1 car. And, FYI, it is much more difficult to drive a race car at speed with grooved tires than slick tires...even my former M3 was easier to drive on the track with slicks than with my street tires...and bigger wings give more downforce also making it easier to go fast. The fact is F1 is more demanding now than in the past...so F1 was in a different league in the 80s, a junior league that is...

 

For a moment I thought you were talking about Montoya.

 

Nonsense.

If anything it would be the other way round.

 

In response to parkerfe:


Dream on, i know a little something about being in shape. The fact that training, especially weight training is much more common today for all people than back then accounts for the "fitness" of today's drivers.

You forget that they used up those tires really fast and put new ones on, those tires also helped brake the car with much larger contact patch. Memories aside, look at the chart in the link above for 85. Best year of F1 ever. No team orders, 10 cars that could win each race.

8 different winners, teams Lauda/prost, mansell/rosberg etc. And nothing will equal that 1 lap all out qualifying. Those drivers were physically strong enough to handle any car and the only place where fitness comes into play is in extreme conditions like heat. Patrese passed out in Rio during the race and spun out.

Any physics major here, faster speed on longer turn with same mass seems to me to yield a higher sustained G.

 

I think the 80s and 2000s are both challenging in thir own ways.

I think the 80s had
... lack of traction control,
... insane horsepower (up to 1200hp in the turbo era),
... more intense competition at the top (Piquet, Prost, Mansell, Senna, Lauda,...).
... Manual gearboxes

While the 2000s have
... More intense g forces
... More competitive focus and less fun due to the commercialization aspect
... Drivers that need to understand their car's handling dynamics (aero + mechanical) more than his counterparts in the 80s to squeeze out the last tenths out of the car.

To me though the 80s and the 30s were the best decades ever. I base it on the quality of drivers and the competition between them and nothing else.

 

I never said F1 was not more 'entertaining' in the past...heck, NASCAR is more 'entertaining' both now and then...just that F1 is more athletic now...and from what I've read modern F1 drivers do much more cardio such as bicycling than they do weight training...go to a race track and drive the same car a few laps with slicks and then with grooved street tires and then tell me which was more difficult.

 

My bad. You know what I meant.

 

Frank.

lo'fasz a seggedbe!

Google is your friend!

 

There seems to be a common misconception that G-forces have increased over the years, which is not entirely true. From what I understand, they peaked in the 93-94 time frame as they were approaching 5Gs with ground effects. That level has not been reached since, with only 2004 coming in the ball park (and since dumbed down). Passing out from G-loads was a legitimate concern, and a core of Senna's training if you read his books. Even he admitted to momentary black outs.

My $.02 is that it's probably a toss up, although after 94 I would venture that cars have become a little less physically demanding. The only element that has really gotten tougher on the driver since then is braking.

 

Actually I'd say Senna started off in worse machinery than MS. The Tolman car and team were nowhere near the standards and competitiveness as the Benetton was when you look at the grids. Senna drive that car way above its performance level. He then moved to Lotus. Which I'd say would have been close with the Benetton car and organization that MS was driving with if not a bit below. To say the Benetton wasn't a front running chassis is just plain wrong. That was a fantastic car. Both in performance and styling. I'd argue it was the perfect weapon for the existing rules of the time. Short wheel base, compact powerful and reliable V8, good aero package and the same team that surrounds MS today. Paint it red, put the Ferrari livery on it and it'd be a Ferrari. Just because they made it in England rather than Italy doesn't matter much. If you'd wanted to see the future it was right there.

Senna fought those early years in the Lotus against the McLarens which were the class of the field. They've always been a title contender. It made since for Senna to change teams. The fact that he made a move to a team that had the BEST rated driver of the time (Prost) driving for them just showed how fast he was. MS could have made the same type of move but he chose to build a team around him where no one would or could challenge him. Is MS deserving of all his titles? Absolutely. Is he as fast as Senna? No. Is he a better tactician than Senna? Yes.

To me MS is kind of the love child of Prost and Senna. He's got the combination of Prost tactical since and Senna's outright speed.

 

From what I've read, the G-force in braking has increased due to carbon-cermanic brakes...

 

I agree. Hence, the last line of my previous post:
"The only element that has really gotten tougher on the driver since then is braking."

Edit, the max g-forces that I was referring to in the first paragraph were under cornering. Nowadays I would venture that braking and cornering Gs are pretty close.

 

Also, Senna turned down an offer from Bernie Ecclestone to drive for Brabham, which would have obviously been a stronger car. He tested the Toleman AFTER testing with Williams and McLaren, both of whom were impressed but had no room for Ayrton. When he drove the Toleman at Silverstone, he did it in damp conditions, and with little chance for tweaking the setup. He quickly put in a time that would have put him sixth on the grid at the Grand Prix. And it had been his first time in a turbo car. Senna's comments after the test were that he knew this wasn't a car capable of winning Grands Prix, but one in which he could show his ability. He also knew it was in his own interests to join a team like that and be able to control his own destiny rather than get locked into the 10-year deal that Bernie was offering him. And all of this was only midway through his first/only season of F3. Just some facts.

 

As if you really know that as a fact. This is pure BS and i'm just sick and tired of people like you jumping to conclusions like that making it sound like a fact. You're obviously a Senna fan, no problem, he was a great driver and deserves a lot of fans. I'm as much of a Schumi fan myself but I would never say stupid things like "Schumi is DEFINATELY faster than [enter your late f1 driver here]"
Feel free to compare the two drivers, but please do it rationally.

 

It is interesting to observe how this thread polarizes people. The true colors are shining through.

 

Dude, Schumacher started his career in a Jordan not in a Benetton.
So your whole argument is invalid.

 

I think I have done it rationally. I also think that my point was made with the comparison of Senna's pole position record being made while having a fast team mate, one of the top ten GP drivers of all time, Prost in a shorter time period than MS while MS lead the most dominant team in F1 history! How is that not a rational argument?

If you'd like a rational argument for it how about MS himself. At the end of the 94 season when asked if he would have won the season if Senna had lived he said he doubted it. That was even though he was driving the superior Benetton. It may very well have been an emotional response to the question but even if it were I think it simply shows how much respect MS had for Senna. Something that seems to be lacking by others in this thread. But, they're entitled to their opinion and although I don't agree with it they can have it.

Senna drove one way and one way only. Flat out. That style brought him a lot of fans but it also caused him some problems. It resulted in a lot of mistakes that I'm sure MS would never have made. It cost him extra championships as well. The only thing that mattered to Senna was winning and decimating the opposition on track.

The way two separate drivers approach and attack a corner/track is what makes F1 so much fun. It's what makes threads like these so much fun. FWIW I think we were all cheated by Senna's death but as much as we were cheated I think MS was cheated even more so. Why? Because he would never be able to truly match up against one of F1's greats. Both Prost and Senna are rated as highly as they are because they not only competed against each other but because they did so in identical equipment. MS has never had that opportunity and it's a shame.

I MS the greatest all round F1 driver F1 has ever seen, I'd say an emphatic YES. But, I still don't think he was as fast as Senna. There's a difference.

 

He was only at Jordan for ONE race which he had to retire from because he fried the clutch. How does that invalidate my argument? DUDE...
http://www.formula1.com/archive/driver/detail/1991/7/69.html

 

Agreed for the most part, but a few comments (and we have been here before):

- I still believe the Williams was the superior car in 94, otherwise somebody like Hill wouldn't have stood a chance against MS. Of course the FIA helped with banning MS from some races.

- MS battled Hakkinen, whom I consider one of the fastest drivers of all times.

MS didn't win his 7 titles by walking in the park. He didn't face the constant competition Senna had all his F1 career long, but Michael was/is still not without competition.